Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd
like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our
other members.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you are a member in good standing, then you can navigate to the 2015 Miami Dolphins Media Guide from the navigation bar at the top of the forums. Also, in the sticky section of the main forum, there is a link to vote on your top 50 dolphins players of all time.

Whats not to like from Cato's arguements? For instance for starters, getting of a government entity that wasn't started until the 70's, whose budget has exploded exponentily and influence on the local and state level has grown tremendously that even if states wanted to change their policies there's a lot of money putting up a firewall, and seems really bi-partisan in its failure and as the President stated is a danger of our kids future...so why shouldn't we abolish the Department of Education.

What does the legalization of drugs have to do with the Department of Education?

Originally Posted by Eshlemon

Won't this just mean the state and locals are going to be replaced by federalies for enforcement. As recent history suggests with illegal immigration, just because states may want something doesn't mean the federal government's not going to allow them to have it without a fight.

Perhaps to a degree, but not to the extent that local departments are able to enforce. The Feds may bust in on a few pot shops (as evidenced in California), because they're easy standing-targets, but that's about the extent of it.

I agree that the Feds will fight this thing till the bitter end, but I believe the legalization process is a slow-moving inevitability.

Won't this just mean the state and locals are going to be replaced by federalies for enforcement. As recent history suggests with illegal immigration, just because states may want something doesn't mean the federal government's not going to allow them to have it without a fight.

I suppose that's possible. There are too many variables to predict what's going to happen. The stigma on marijuana is getting weaker by the day, so it's also possible the feds just don't spend the money needed to enforce it...

If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
maybe you would never have to hurt again...

Re: UN Official Calls for Marijuana Ballot Rollback

Originally Posted by Locke

I suppose that's possible. There are too many variables to predict what's going to happen. The stigma on marijuana is getting weaker by the day, so it's also possible the feds just don't spend the money needed to enforce it...

The greater the enforcement, the greater the price of drugs, the more people will be willing to risk to distribute them.

If people meet the criteria for owning said weapon, have permits, & are subjected to background checks, then I have no problem with that.

I also believe prostitution & gambling should be legal.

Good man. My only problem with all the precursors to gun ownership is all the hoops. I believe in a background check to weed out violent felons and people with mental illness, but our constitution says nothing about having to meet all those criteria for gun ownership.

If people meet the criteria for owning said weapon, have permits, & are subjected to background checks, then I have no problem with that.

I also believe prostitution & gambling should be legal.

For the purpose of argument, what justification can you offer for someone having to get a permit and being forced to submit to an intrusive background check so they can exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution?

For the purpose of argument, what justification can you offer for someone having to get a permit and being forced to submit to an intrusive background check so they can exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution?

Outside of common sense regulation for convicted criminals & the mentally ill, it wouldn't be denying anyone anything; it'd only be an inconvenience.

Outside of common sense regulation for convicted criminals & the mentally ill, it wouldn't be denying anyone anything; it'd only be an inconvenience.

Background checks are intrusive by nature and invade people's privacy. Surely you wouldn't agree that people who want to use marijuana should be subject to a background check, yet the use of marijuana isn't specifically protected by the Constitution whereas the right to own guns is.

Background checks are intrusive by nature and invade people's privacy. Surely you wouldn't agree that people who want to use marijuana should be subject to a background check, yet the use of marijuana isn't specifically protected by the Constitution whereas the right to own guns is.

Well, weed can't be used to kill someone so its kinda apple and oranges. Things that have potential to kill others definitely deserve more regulation than harmless plants. Even from a libertarian point of view that still holds true since the philosophy calls for laws and such for actions and things that cause harm.